Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[Tigger]

Also, Carlyle should really have been thankful for "unleashed" Gardiner:

‏@mc79hockey 

Post Olympics, Leafs at 5v5 with Gardiner on the ice: 14 GF, 13 GA, 47.3% Corsi. Without Gardiner: 39 GF 61 GA, 41.2% Corsi.

Pretty significant difference.

I guess he was happy to have unleashed? Randy may not have had a lot of options, it looked like Phaneuf and Gunnar were playing banged up, so he had to rely more on Jake and Morgan and then some kind of ghastly combinations after that.

Good on the kid for playing well when given a larger role but seriously, there were plenty o reasons for him not to have it before.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Also, Carlyle should really have been thankful for "unleashed" Gardiner:

‏@mc79hockey 

Post Olympics, Leafs at 5v5 with Gardiner on the ice: 14 GF, 13 GA, 47.3% Corsi. Without Gardiner: 39 GF 61 GA, 41.2% Corsi.

Pretty significant difference.

I guess he was happy to have unleashed? Randy may not have had a lot of options, it looked like Phaneuf and Gunnar were playing banged up, so he had to rely more on Jake and Morgan and then some kind of ghastly combinations after that.

Good on the kid for playing well when given a larger role but seriously, there were plenty o reasons for him not to have it before.

Not really, but agree to disagree.

 

[L K]

It's a loaded question.

I don't see how. If you think a manager plays a significant role in a team's W-L record then by criticizing Gibbons in that manner you're de facto saying that you think a better manager would have gotten a better result with a comparable talent level. I mean, I agree that there was talent there but that's why the Jays put up pretty good records under Gibbons.

I'm not trying to imply that Gibbons let that team down, we just don't know what the effect of another manager would have done with the same players. 
If anything, my argument would be more that a bad coach (which I include a guy who just doesn't fit with the players/atmosphere of the lockerroom) limits the potential of the team, whereas a good coach is more about just getting the team to accomplish what the talent of the roster is capable of.  I mean, maybe a different coach holds that Jays team together a little better and they don't swoon out of playoff contention.  Maybe he finds a way to make the right decisions on who to put in the rotation as your 5th starter based on humidity, colour of the 1st fan who enters the crowd, etc.  Who knows.  They are all soft things to argue though.

It's a soft argument because I can't really prove it in any discernable way though so it's not something worth arguing back and forth I guess.

 

[cw]

A more important thing for near term success is to hire a coach who will adjust their system around the talent he has to work with - rather than mandate a system that has worked for that coach in the past. Arguably for example, Tortorella wasn't the best choice Vancouver could have made given the talent mix on their roster. He's a proven Cup winner, good defensively and tended to demand physical play but he's never been that strong on the style that lighter weight Vancouver roster needed to play to maximize their results in my opinion.

To some extent, I think Ron Wilson suffered in Toronto for the same reason. At times, he tried to get them to play a style that didn't suit the optimum sum of their talents. OTH, Pat Quinn tended to be pretty good at adjusting his system to the talent he had to work with - if he lacked physical shutdown talent, he went with a run and gun for example.

I think I agree with that in the abstract but I think one of the reasons I grapple with it in the specific here is that as someone who's advocated for that complete tear down one of the reasons I've often said that it's ultimately necessary is that if you look at the composition of cup winners they tend to have a fairly similar sort of players in the high end spots and that acquiring those players needs to chiefly be done through picking right at the top of the draft.

The response to that, fairly frequently, has been to specifically point to the '07 Ducks as an example not only of a team that wasn't largely built around those high end draft picks but also as an example of a team that differed from most Cup winners in some important ways(not having a traditional #1 center, using a shutdown line almost as a #2 line, favouring a top heavy rather than a deep defense, etc).

So the Leafs hired the guy who made that work and, as we've watched them struggle we've heard about how the problem is now Carlyle and how the system that worked for him in Anaheim won't work in Toronto. So if the traditional route is off-limits and the only guy who's made the non-traditional route work doesn't have the right players in place it sounds like you're left with pretty limited options if that big shiny cup is the end goal.

I get that there's wisdom in recognizing that the board probably won't go for the tear down route and I appreciate that this team isn't the '07 Ducks but after that...where's the blue print?

"where's the blue print?"

is the key question but to me, we've already got the answer.

I think the MLSE board and Shanahan will eventually flush that out with Nonis and it will eventually cost him his job.

Nonis could enhance his chances if he'd roll his roster over to compress more young talent on it to improve his young core but for fun, let's fast forward to the trade deadline next year:

The team is roughly competing for a playoff berth - somewhere between 6th and 10th in the standings. What are the chances Nonis flips some pending aging UFAs for picks? Next to zilch because for his near future job security, Nonis can't afford to miss the playoffs again (assuming he survives this spring) ...

Nonis is stuck on the path he's on - which is to cobble together the best result he can with a roster that is less likely to be able to seriously contend for a cup beyond a long shot because it will always lack a great young core that can deliver several good shots. And that's the retooling blueprint he signed up for when Burke got dumped whether he ever admits it or not.

It's good that he's not trading away youth ... yet. Pat Quinn wasn't either until Peddie told him he'd have to pick a role ... and then we saw Quinn mortgage the future with Nolan, Wesley, etc - spending some of the youth he'd acquired to take a last shot as GM.

Next deadline, Nonis will have to claim they have some excess youth to trade if he needs help to make the playoffs ... or he's out of a job. Happens to a lot of GMs when they get themselves into the position Nonis is in.

At this juncture with Nonis, the blueprint will increasingly lean towards self preservation as opposed to a championship. And it's very likely they'll eventually dump him for it.

I do think there were some special things with the Ducks '07 situation and they did benefit from the young assets Burke inherited.

I also think Ottawa and Washington are examples of franchises that tried the rebuild route pretty well ... and failed. There are never any guarantees.

 

[Tigger]

Good to see you back cw.

 

[Kin]

It's a loaded question.

I don't see how. If you think a manager plays a significant role in a team's W-L record then by criticizing Gibbons in that manner you're de facto saying that you think a better manager would have gotten a better result with a comparable talent level. I mean, I agree that there was talent there but that's why the Jays put up pretty good records under Gibbons.

I'm not trying to imply that Gibbons let that team down, we just don't know what the effect of another manager would have done with the same players. 
If anything, my argument would be more that a bad coach (which I include a guy who just doesn't fit with the players/atmosphere of the lockerroom) limits the potential of the team, whereas a good coach is more about just getting the team to accomplish what the talent of the roster is capable of.  I mean, maybe a different coach holds that Jays team together a little better and they don't swoon out of playoff contention.  Maybe he finds a way to make the right decisions on who to put in the rotation as your 5th starter based on humidity, colour of the 1st fan who enters the crowd, etc.  Who knows.  They are all soft things to argue though.

It's a soft argument because I can't really prove it in any discernable way though so it's not something worth arguing back and forth I guess.

My point is just that Gibbons, and Maurice to my way of thinking, are both good arguments for the limitations of what a manager/coach can really do in terms of having an impact on a team's record. Both guys, I think, have years where they got more than they should have out of a team and some where they got less but mostly they got about what I think their talent dictated they would.

If coaching were the factor I think some are presenting it, I don't think we'd see the variations we do.

 

[ZBBM]

Nonis is stuck on the path he's on - which is to cobble together the best result he can with a roster that is less likely to be able to seriously contend for a cup beyond a long shot because it will always lack a great young core that can deliver several good shots. And that's the retooling blueprint he signed up for when Burke got dumped whether he ever admits it or not.

The first step in a rebuild blueprint, then, is identifying that great young core.  I'm certain there's no consensus on who that is, but you could argue like this:

DEFINITELY CORE
Rielly: His skillset may be elite.
Kessel:  He's still young(ish) and he's an elite scorer

MAYBE CORE:
Kadri: Hard to say whether he will really flourish, but he's got the tools
Gardiner: Great offensive / puck control upside, defensively suspect (at least so far)

PROSPECTS
Who knows?  None are "can't miss."

My bottom line is that we are far from having the a great young core in place.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

I'm sure it's all a coincidence.

In 148 games as Leafs coach, Carlyle has won only 70. In a league where roughly 92 points is now an average team, Toronto has been an 86-point one under his guidance, one outscored 442 to 406 even though his goaltenders have had a very respectable .913 save percentage in that span.

More troublingly, the Leafs have been outshot progressively worse as the seasons have gone on, with their shot differential under Carlyle now ballooning to an average of minus-7.1 per game.

While he had success with the Anaheim Ducks seven years ago in winning a championship, Carlyle?s teams also developed these same issues at the end of his tenure there, which eventually led to his firing at the start of the 2011-12 season.

Despite recognizing and consistently stating the possession problem throughout the year in Toronto, there was never any indication he was able to fix it, and the Leafs dropped to an embarrassingly low 41.5 per cent possession rating ? ahead of only Buffalo ? by season?s end.

It?s a number that has dropped in five successive seasons for Carlyle?s teams.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/randy-carlyle-left-twisting-in-the-wind-by-leafs/article18013168/

You gotta feel for Randy that none of the players on his last 5 rosters would just COMPETE.

I cannot say with 100 percent certainty that Carlyle did not alienate at least one player in the dressing room.  I am fully suspicious of that and would say it did happen, but I cannot be certain of that.  It does look odd that none of the players played with any heart or intensity for the last 20 games of the season, as if they all simply gave up, that is the reason for my suspicion.  From what I know of hockey players is they stick together.  If Carlyle threw one player under the bus, then he threw the entire team under that bus.  That would be the major reason why the players did not compete.   

 

[Kin]

"where's the blue print?"

is the key question but to me, we've already got the answer.

[edit]

Apologies, the question wasn't so much "where's the blue print" as in "what will Nonis look to do" so much as it is "what is the template for success that the Leafs can realistically hope to emulate". I don't know if I see Nonis acting out of naked self-interest as a possibility, if only because I think that kind of thing gets him fired anyway and hurts his chance of ever GM'ing again, but I take your point for the rest of your post. You're right that there aren't guarantees except I think we've seen enough to know what's guaranteed not to work.

 

[Deebo]

I cannot say with 100 percent certainty that Carlyle did not alienate at least one player in the dressing room.  I am fully suspicious of that and would say it did happen, but I cannot be certain of that.  It does look odd that none of the players played with any heart or intensity for the last 20 games of the season, as if they all simply gave up, that is the reason for my suspicion.  From what I know of hockey players is they stick together.  If Carlyle threw one player under the bus, then he threw the entire team under that bus. That would be the major reason why the players did not compete.

If that was the case, then I'd be 100% for blowing up the entire roster. I wouldn't want to any have players on my team who stopped competing because the coach was critical of a team mate.

 

[Redleaf]

A more important thing for near term success is to hire a coach who will adjust their system around the talent he has to work with - rather than mandate a system that has worked for that coach in the past. Arguably for example, Tortorella wasn't the best choice Vancouver could have made given the talent mix on their roster. He's a proven Cup winner, good defensively and tended to demand physical play but he's never been that strong on the style that lighter weight Vancouver roster needed to play to maximize their results in my opinion.

To some extent, I think Ron Wilson suffered in Toronto for the same reason. At times, he tried to get them to play a style that didn't suit the optimum sum of their talents. OTH, Pat Quinn tended to be pretty good at adjusting his system to the talent he had to work with - if he lacked physical shutdown talent, he went with a run and gun for example.

I think I agree with that in the abstract but I think one of the reasons I grapple with it in the specific here is that as someone who's advocated for that complete tear down one of the reasons I've often said that it's ultimately necessary is that if you look at the composition of cup winners they tend to have a fairly similar sort of players in the high end spots and that acquiring those players needs to chiefly be done through picking right at the top of the draft.

The response to that, fairly frequently, has been to specifically point to the '07 Ducks as an example not only of a team that wasn't largely built around those high end draft picks but also as an example of a team that differed from most Cup winners in some important ways(not having a traditional #1 center, using a shutdown line almost as a #2 line, favouring a top heavy rather than a deep defense, etc).

So the Leafs hired the guy who made that work and, as we've watched them struggle we've heard about how the problem is now Carlyle and how the system that worked for him in Anaheim won't work in Toronto. So if the traditional route is off-limits and the only guy who's made the non-traditional route work doesn't have the right players in place it sounds like you're left with pretty limited options if that big shiny cup is the end goal.

I get that there's wisdom in recognizing that the board probably won't go for the tear down route and I appreciate that this team isn't the '07 Ducks but after that...where's the blue print?

"where's the blue print?"

is the key question but to me, we've already got the answer.

I think the MLSE board and Shanahan will eventually flush that out with Nonis and it will eventually cost him his job.

Nonis could enhance his chances if he'd roll his roster over to compress more young talent on it to improve his young core but for fun, let's fast forward to the trade deadline next year:

The team is roughly competing for a playoff berth - somewhere between 6th and 10th in the standings. What are the chances Nonis flips some pending aging UFAs for picks? Next to zilch because for his near future job security, Nonis can't afford to miss the playoffs again (assuming he survives this spring) ...

Nonis is stuck on the path he's on - which is to cobble together the best result he can with a roster that is less likely to be able to seriously contend for a cup beyond a long shot because it will always lack a great young core that can deliver several good shots. And that's the retooling blueprint he signed up for when Burke got dumped whether he ever admits it or not.

It's good that he's not trading away youth ... yet. Pat Quinn wasn't either until Peddie told him he'd have to pick a role ... and then we saw Quinn mortgage the future with Nolan, Wesley, etc - spending some of the youth he'd acquired to take a last shot as GM.

Next deadline, Nonis will have to claim they have some excess youth to trade if he needs help to make the playoffs ... or he's out of a job. Happens to a lot of GMs when they get themselves into the position Nonis is in.

At this juncture with Nonis, the blueprint will increasingly lean towards self preservation as opposed to a championship. And it's very likely they'll eventually dump him for it.

I do think there were some special things with the Ducks '07 situation and they did benefit from the young assets Burke inherited.

I also think Ottawa and Washington are examples of franchises that tried the rebuild route pretty well ... and failed. There are never any guarantees.

Nobody really knows how this new management structure will sort itself out, but if I'm Nonis I clearly explain the situation, much like you have laid out here, to Shanahan. I don't see why he needs to be stuck on an old plan that Burke essentially put together, (with Nonis's help of course.)

If Shanny really wants what's best for the team, I'm sure he'll be supportive and not let Nonis go into self preservation mode to save his job. They'll have to work in unison from here on in, and I sincerely hope Shanahan is a little bit flexible with Nonis, and some of the previous decisions made.

Of course, Shanny may have a different agenda altogether that involves bringing in his own people.... so we'll have to wait and see I guess.

 

[lamajama]

What is he still doing here?

 

[Redleaf]

Paul Maurice on signing his 4-year contract with Winnipeg?

"Maybe I should have waited for Toronto to call"

 

[moon111]

The Leafs blueprint is like a house with lots of windows and no doors.  Franson was exactly the type of defenseman the Leafs didn't need.  Mobile, shut-down was needed.

 

[Highlander]

Just read that the last six Stanley Cup winners had a elite possession rate of an average 54.8%, shows what wins hockey games doesn't it?  Also Vignault's Rangers are up around 54% now in possession.  Guess we need to get a coach who has proven his teams can possess the puck over 50% otherwise should not be considered for the job.

 

[pmrules]

Paul Maurice on signing his 4-year contract with Winnipeg?

"Maybe I should have waited for Toronto to call"

I also heard Maurice on the radio yesterday say that coaching in Winnipeg is like Toronto without the "BS".

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Paul Maurice on signing his 4-year contract with Winnipeg?

"Maybe I should have waited for Toronto to call"

I also heard Maurice on the radio yesterday say that coaching in Winnipeg is like Toronto without the "BS".

In Winnipeg the players get all the BS, like Kane.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

In Winnipeg the players get all the BS, like Kane.

And Byfuglien. Who have nothing in common other than being lazy and spoiled.

 

[Kin]

I also heard Maurice on the radio yesterday say that coaching in Winnipeg is like Toronto without the "BS".

BS, in this case, standing for "burning sun".

 

[Optimus Reimer]

I cannot say with 100 percent certainty that Carlyle did not alienate at least one player in the dressing room.  I am fully suspicious of that and would say it did happen, but I cannot be certain of that.  It does look odd that none of the players played with any heart or intensity for the last 20 games of the season, as if they all simply gave up, that is the reason for my suspicion.  From what I know of hockey players is they stick together.  If Carlyle threw one player under the bus, then he threw the entire team under that bus. That would be the major reason why the players did not compete.

If that was the case, then I'd be 100% for blowing up the entire roster. I wouldn't want to any have players on my team who stopped competing because the coach was critical of a team mate.

Unfortunately in a team culture and environment, the players have each others backs so when the criticism by a coach is unfair or without foundation, the rest of the players will take offence of that criticism.  On the other hand, if the criticism is fair and warranted, the players should be 'man enough' to take it and try to improve.

In the case of Carlyle from listening to his PCs, he publicly criticized or publically implied criticism towards Reimer and one defenceman,  It would have been better if he kept things in house so as not to demoralize the entire team.